My 2 cents.
It all very much depends on the lay person's capability to see what is there.
But I think this brings us to another point:
- could some lay people in "at risk locations" be trained to do fairly good assessments?
- could this type of training be created to be part of some basic training for people sent to disaster areas?
- could a process be created to address the 80/20 rule? If such trainees can clear (or condemn) 80% of the damaged buildings then one might be "4 times better off" (80/20=4) than waiting and condemning people to the open air while experts arrive/are available.
This is a bit like training lay-women to deliver babies in remote areas where nothing else is available.
Comments?
'nando

My 2 cents.
It all very much depends on the lay person's capability to see what is there.
But I think this brings us to another point:
- point/s:

could some lay people in "at risk locations" be trained to do fairly good assessments?
- assessments?

could this type of training be created to be part of some basic training for people sent to disaster areas?
- areas?

could a process be created to address the 80/20 rule? If such trainees can clear (or condemn) 80% of the damaged buildings then one might be "4 times better off" (80/20=4) than waiting and condemning people to the open air while experts arrive/are available.
available.

This is a bit like training lay-women to deliver babies in remote areas where nothing else is available.
Comments?
'nando